Primary field strength

• To: "'Tesla List'" <tesla-at-pupman-dot-com>
• Subject: Primary field strength
• From: Tesla List <tesla-at-stic-dot-net>
• Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1998 01:25:33 -0500
• Approved: tesla-at-stic-dot-net

----------
From:  Malcolm Watts [SMTP:MALCOLM-at-directorate.wnp.ac.nz]
Sent:  Monday, August 24, 1998 1:24 AM
To:  Tesla List
Subject:  Re: Primary field strength

In reply:

> From:  th3 mAst3r [SMTP:menthol-at-juno-dot-com]
> Sent:  Sunday, August 23, 1998 4:53 PM
> To:  tesla-at-pupman-dot-com
> Subject:  Re: Primary field strength
> 
> this post is a little old but my comment is at the bottom.

<snip>

> >In other words, you can't get more out than you put in and that 
> >equality assumes no losses in transferring the energy from primary to 
> >secondary. Note that it also works by Vs = Vp*SQRT(Ls/Lp) since
> >LsCs = LpCp (tuning requirement).
> >
> >Malcolm 
> >
> >
> >
> 
> why is LsCs = LpCp a tuning a requirement?  does this mean most tesla
> coils are double tuned transformer circuits or am i getting things mixed
> up?
> 
> thanks...
> 
> ~m3nthol

All the ones I've ever got running are. Has anybody out there ever 
managed to get a coil going where LsCs<>LpCp?  I'd be interested to 
hear.

Malcolm 

• Prev: Who or what is Q [Length to Dia ratio]
• Next: Primary field strength
• Index(es):
  • Main
  • Thread